Every particularist agrees that Christ's death has effects for all men. I mean by universalist that belief that Jesus died for all men whoever. That's like saying a black man can sign a document in good faith that says "White men are intelligent, and America was made for them." When the black man's friends say, "Hey, why did you sign that?" He responds, "Oh, I could do so in good conscience. You see, they didn't say that Black men were not smart, and they didn't say that America was only for white men." More than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole words says nothing about Jesus dying for them. His death was enough. If one more person had been predestined, Jesus would not have had to suffer and longer, harsher, or again. Dordt does't say that. He played loose and fast with the facts, lied to himself, and *that,* not the wording of Dordt, was what alloed him to sign in good conscience. The best question, would a full on 4-pointer have written Dordt that way? How come every single 4-pointer I read must make it PLAIN that Jesus did not die "just for the elect." That he died to allow for the salvation of all men, if only they would come by faith. So, the very fact that a 4-pointer *would not* have written Dordt et al in that way, serves to deliver a strong blow against 4-pointer revisionism. But, as I said, it matters not since the Bible plainly teaches a limted atonement in the doctrine of Jesus' death as the death of a high priest for his people, interceeding for all those he atones for. God didn't provide the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Cannanites, &c. an atonement via the blood of lambs. Why thik he provides modern Egyptians, Assyrians, Cannanites, &c. an atonement via the death of The Lamb?